Am I wrong in thinking this?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by haertig

Then you have Bluray vs. HD-DVD. There was not clear superior technology there IMHO, however with it being "all about the money", the Bluray group was willing to spend more money to shutdown HD-DVD than the other way around.

HD-DVD was cheaper to manufacture at any DVD stamping plant. BluRay cost more and only came from Sony. But Sony paid WarnerBros $250M. That's why WB had the free HD-DVD to BkuRay exchange program: SONY paid for the dew disks:

https://www.animationmagazine.net/ho...s-for-blu-ray/

(BTW, VHS had slightly lesser image quality that Neta but it had a longer recording time, it was cheaper, and it came from multiple vendors while BETA couldn't always record a full movie from cable or two episodes and only came from Sony.)

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

That's Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD. The better format won the battle. Now the thing to do is stop making DVD. DVD is obsolete.

1- DVDs are cheaper to manufacture. ($0.50)
2- There's a ton of DVD players in cars and (especially) minivans.
3- Upscaling disk players TVs do a decent enough job on many movies.
4- $3-5 DVDs at WalMart. $1.80 rentals at RedBox.
5- As long as people buy/rent them, they'll make them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETxmCCsMoD0

[hobnail]

My memory was that HD-DVD was the better format. At least according to the journalists. One interesting thing about BD is that according to the spec a BD player must be able to run Java programs that are on the disc. In the early days the best reference platform for BD was the Playstation, for testing the Java stuff. But apparently very few BD discs include any Java.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Now the thing to do is stop making DVD. DVD is obsolete.

I disagree. I don't buy movies any longer. But I still like cult classic TV shows and most of them are only available on DVD. Even fairly recent releases.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I disagree. I don't buy movies any longer. But I still like cult classic TV shows and most of them are only available on DVD. Even fairly recent releases.

Starting a few years ago, some recent series that had been releasing on both BR and DVD started releasing on DVD only.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by hobnail

My memory was that HD-DVD was the better format. At least according to the journalists. One interesting thing about BD is that according to the spec a BD player must be able to run Java programs that are on the disc. In the early days the best reference platform for BD was the Playstation, for testing the Java stuff. But apparently very few BD discs include any Java.

Early on, HD-DVD was noticeably better because Sony specified the same MPEG2 codec as DVDs whereas TOSHIBA adopted the far superior HD-focused VC9 CODEC and matching editing and disk mastering software. After Sony bought their way into domination, the MPEG LA group developed the H.264 codec which was much better than MPEG2 and almost as good as VC9 but WB and the rest of the HD-DVD studios demanded VC9 support because it had more mature tools. And because JAVA was a CPU hog, requiring more expensive player hardware. (Plus a security danger. The same happened with ePub 3 Javascript. No reader vendor wanted anything to do with Javascript support in their ebook readers.)

And yes, early on, the PS3 was the preferred BD payer, especially in Japan. One "minor" issue: people buying it as a vdeo player didn't bother buying games. And Sony was losing hundreds per console for the first year plus. (Whole different can of worms. Let's just say bilions were lost, heads rolled.)

And then, by the time BD got its act together, streaming HD rentals, subscriptions, and sales started to take off.

As a result, Sony's promises of $50 BD list prices never materialized and sales have never approached DVD volumes. The whole thing turned out to be a pyrrhic victory; they killed HD-DVD but the price was high and the return never reached the promised heights.

As of this week BD prospects took another hit as streaming got a big boost:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/b...s-at-home.html

Warner and Disney are reportedly doing the same, moving to early digital releases, some expensive rentals, other reasonable sales. All before the BD release.

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by hobnail

My memory was that HD-DVD was the better format.

Nah, BD was better.

HD-DVD was 15 and 30 GB for single and dual layer respectively. Meanwhile BD was 25 and 50 GB allowing for higher quality/bitrate video and audio.

However, it was easier and cheaper for DVD manufacturers to convert to HD-DVD.

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Early on, HD-DVD was noticeably better because Sony specified the same MPEG2 codec as DVDs whereas TOSHIBA adopted the far superior HD-focused VC9 CODEC and matching editing and disk mastering software.

Yeah, the use of MPEG-2 in some Blu-rays was annoying.

Iirc though, H.264 was already available in the Blu-ray standard from the beginning. Just that authoring tools were lacking.

[hobnail]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Early on, HD-DVD was noticeably better because Sony specified the same MPEG2 codec as DVDs whereas TOSHIBA adopted the far superior HD-focused VC9 CODEC and matching editing and disk mastering software.

I thought Panasonic was the one who developed HD-DVD; that's the name I remember Sony paying big bucks to to bow out of the US and EU markets. They could still sell HD-DVD in China and there was speculation that they'd still make plenty of money because of that.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by hobnail

I thought Panasonic was the one who developed HD-DVD; that's the name I remember Sony paying big bucks to to bow out of the US and EU markets. They could still sell HD-DVD in China and there was speculation that they'd still make plenty of money because of that.

Toshiba.
If it had had Panasonic onboard it might have lasted longer. Or even won.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_DVD

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by ilovejedd

Nah, BD was better.

HD-DVD was 15 and 30 GB for single and dual layer respectively. Meanwhile BD was 25 and 50 GB allowing for higher quality/bitrate video and audio.

However, it was easier and cheaper for DVD manufacturers to convert to HD-DVD.

Higher capacity but it was wasted with MPEG2.
(And not essential with VC9 and H264/265/266)

And it was a *lot* more expensive to make, more fragile for years, and manufacturing capacity was lower. HD-DVD was cheaper to stamp out and any of the many DVD plants could make them.

A form of HDDVD carried on in China as CBHD for years after Toshiba threw in the towel.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chin...efinition_Disc

[haydnfan]

I'm really surprised to see so many posts devoted to that old format war. I cared about that alot 12 years ago.

I owned both. These are my experiences:

* They both looked great, and obviously much better than dvd.
* I spent $200 on the hd-dvd player, but over $400 on the blu-ray player.
* A cool feature that hd-dvd had was that on some discs it could play as standard dvd or as hd, which meant that if you lent it out or took it with you, your friends or family did not need to own an hd-dvd player.
* The storage capacity on hd-dvds was a non-issue because most blu-rays didn't use their extra capacity and that could have been fixed anyway with a quad-layer hd-dvd.
* The ps3 didn't drive adoption because nobody owned one because it was too expensive. By the time me and others bought it streaming was already a thing and standalone blu-ray players were much cheaper than the ps3.
* Early on blu-rays kept changing and required the players to have firmware updates or the discs wouldn't play. It was frustrating.
* Early on both formats thought it would be cute to have internet access for dynamic ads and special features.

Even though blu-ray won that format war, it still lost. The price was too high (and still is too high), streaming took over, and people had no interest in immediately replacing their dvd collection.

[John F]

Has anyone tried playing one of the "better format" HD-DVDs lately. Just about all of mine are unplayable; I assume disc rot.

Whereas all my Blurays still play fine.

FWIW, I wanted HD-DVD to win while the war was going on.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Starting a few years ago, some recent series that had been releasing on both BR and DVD started releasing on DVD only.

I'm a bit of a movie collector. A lot of old movies are just now being released in blu-ray. Many of those movies are not available streaming. A lot of old series are only available on DVD because the old TV format looks pretty bad on blu-ray. Most of those old series were not filmed in the high definition format.

Different format serve different needs. The market is certainly moved far over to the streaming side of thing. Some people are confusing things a bit though. There are some movies that are available in the various streaming services that are not available for purchase. This is a very different concept that saying that a movie is available for purchase as a digital download, but isn't available in either blu-ray or DVD. I've never seen a movie that is in this last category. I personally prefer to buy movies that I like and will watch more than once, rather than depend on in always being there on streaming.

categories
1) Streaming - services like Disney+ and Netflix. The movie is streamed from the service providers' servers. Movies aren't available for purchase.
2) Digital Download - You purchase or rent individual movies or series. You can download the movie or series.
3) Blu-Ray
4) DVD

There is a bit of overlap between streaming and digital download, especially with Amazon prime.

I like buying blu-ray and dvd because I can watch those without internet connectivity. I like digital download because I don't have to get my lazy tail out of the easy chair to put a disk in the player. I use streaming for movies that I like but not well enough to watch multiple times, or to see if I like a movie well enough to buy it.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by John F

Has anyone tried playing one of the "better format" HD-DVDs lately. Just about all of mine are unplayable; I assume disc rot.

Whereas all my Blurays still play fine.

FWIW, I wanted HD-DVD to win while the war was going on.

Note: I have had Quad or better sound (current is 6.0. I do not need a Sub, my mains are 15") since the 70's.

I also have LaserDisc. So far, I lost one (unplayable) to Laser rot. A few show signs, but still play (and don't look wonderful on a modern TV (Not Zoomed, just original aspect). Letterbox and Digital sound was a plus.

VHS! Had some combo- players ( Tape and DVD), but the rubber parts are failing and replacements were priced closer to when these were new.- Dumped/gave the tapes away.

So far, my DVD collection is in good condition, but for new content, I prefer Bluray.